I wholeheartedly disagree that that is the "relevent question." The negative impact of a firing, whether it be to the employee, the employer, or both (as is almost always the case), is straying from the point. The point, I think, was whether an employer should have the right to release an employee without a stated reason- which boils down to "who owns the job?" Is it the employee's job, or the employers job? The job ALWAYS belongs to the company that created it. And that company can replace the person holding the position, or delete the position they created, without the input of the employee, or without having to explain to the employee why they are doing so- because it is the company's job. It belongs to the company. It is the property of the company.Your implied exceptions are light years from the rule.
The relevant question is which entity, the employee or the company, is more greatly negatively impacted as a whole by the firing.
Just about always that's the employee, and significantly greatly more so.
Perhaps. The conversation would probably go like this. "Unfortunately, we are letting you go. Good luck in your further endeavors." That could be contrued as either a lay off or a firing. The result would be exactly the same. The employee would no longer work for the company and they would be entitled to UI benefits. At the point that a termination occurs (and a layoff is a termination) the reason no longer matters unless the company has standing to dispute the UI benefits.If what you are saying is true, indeed as another poster I just read above has also so stated/implied, then providing no reason for dismissal is the same thing as laying someone off.
If that's the case, then providing no reason for the dismissal is not firing someone.
Why wouldn't they file for the benefits if the company did not provide a reason? If there was no reason, lathey should go get their benefits. If it was a lay off, they should go get their benefits. The only way a reasonable person would not pursue the benefits is if they know, already, what the reason for the termination was, even if it wasn't explicitly stated. A person, for instance, may have had several run ins with their supervisor regarding their job performance. It may have been that at the last meeting, the supervisor informed the employee that if their performance did not improve, they would be released. When the termination happens, whether the separation notice gives the reason or not, the employee KNEW the reason, and therefore might not waste their time trying to collect UI.The employee might understandably not pursue unemployment benefits and the employer would thus not have their unemployment insurance premiums increased.
Disgruntled terminated employees have a tendency to be angry. If you give them a reason, it may just be that they try to generate "witnesses" within your office, with the intention of attempting to prove that the reason you gave was invalid. For whatever reason, you, as the employer, decided their services were no longer needed. Why would you create this atmosphere of hostility within your company, opening the basis for your decision up for discussion? There is no more discussion needed. They may also, perhaps if they are a minority, attempt to turn a firing for poor performance into a discrimination case, completely lacking in merit, but time consuming and expensive just the same.It thus still seems the right thing from a liberty and justice for all perspective for the employer to tell the truth to the employee as to why the employee is being let go.
If you choose to fill out the "reason" section on the separation notice, you better make sure you list ALL the reasons. Not just one. Because even though you are not required to fill it out, if you DO fill it out, you are locked into that being ALL of the information. You can't decide later that there were also other reasons. It just isn't worth it to provide a formal reason.